Jutish Language?

Again, that's not impossible : it would just be particularly hard, critically if you already have to manage societal changes in Romania as a whole. You'd really need a reason for a massive political focus susceptible to radically change Roman Britain. And then have this focus surviving emperors' waltz.

Would it be possible to have some sort of 'gold rush', like what happened to OTL California? I mean OTL California was an under developed populated desert, then over the course of several decades it was as populous as anywhere back east. So maybe the same thing happens in Britain, where someone finds an amount of valuable material, causing people to think there's a reason to go there. A decade or so later, they realise its not there, but most have done well enough in their established places that moving back isn't worthwhile. And maybe this could lead to more romanization in the backwaters, as people looking for the rarity head away from city centers.
 
Would it be possible to have some sort of 'gold rush', like what happened to OTL California?
I really think, as said above, that Romans lacked a "pioneer" spirit as you had in USA : if you had to make people work, locals and Germans were just invented for that, so why not use them?

So maybe the same thing happens in Britain, where someone finds an amount of valuable material, causing people to think there's a reason to go there.
Remember that Rome is before all things a state, a military and a bureaucracy. Basically some specialists would go there and say "nope, it was bogus".

Eventually, you had two sorts of mining organisations : the ones overseed by administrators (with possible military security, in remote places, as Dolaucothi mines); and the ones sold in a sort of "private-public partnership".
Basically mining wasn't about small entrepreneurs, but rich and powerful people, if not the state.

I always assumed Jutish was mutually intelligible with Saxon and Angle, which is why it didn't end up lasting.
Giving that Western Germanic speeches didn't get really differenciated before the VIIIth century at best, it's possible we're not talking of mutual intellegibility between diverse definied speeches, but a dialectal continuum (we know, for exemple, that Insular Saxons, a mix of different peoples eventually, understood and were understood by Continental Saxons as late as Carolingian period)
 
I really think, as said above, that Romans lacked a "pioneer" spirit as you had in USA : if you had to make people work, locals and Germans were just invented for that, so why not use them?


Remember that Rome is before all things a state, a military and a bureaucracy. Basically some specialists would go there and say "nope, it was bogus".

Eventually, you had two sorts of mining organisations : the ones overseed by administrators (with possible military security, in remote places, as Dolaucothi mines); and the ones sold in a sort of "private-public partnership".
Basically mining wasn't about small entrepreneurs, but rich and powerful people, if not the state.


Giving that Western Germanic speeches didn't get really differenciated before the VIIIth century at best, it's possible we're not talking of mutual intellegibility between diverse definied speeches, but a dialectal continuum (we know, for exemple, that Insular Saxons, a mix of different peoples eventually, understood and were understood by Continental Saxons as late as Carolingian period)

Dammit thats another idea gone... I'm going to take some time to come up with something good, make you work to find all the holes in my next idea.
 
Giving that Western Germanic speeches didn't get really differenciated before the VIIIth century at best, it's possible we're not talking of mutual intellegibility between diverse definied speeches, but a dialectal continuum (we know, for exemple, that Insular Saxons, a mix of different peoples eventually, understood and were understood by Continental Saxons as late as Carolingian period)

And the continuum might well have continued up through North Germanic Languages, making Jutish And Danish probably, on each side of the established border, Pidgin/Creoles of each other and languages deeper into the respective territories. It

the Germanic languages (at least Western/Northern) seem to be more of an artificial seperation than a real, as I with some knowledge of old Danish are just shy of understanding Old English without 'interacting' with my knowledge of English
 
the Germanic languages (at least Western/Northern) seem to be more of an artificial seperation than a real as I with some knowledge of old Danish are just shy of understanding Old English without 'interacting' with my knowledge of English
I'd be less affirmative myself, if you're saying that you didn't have any difference (linguistical or cultural) between Western and Northern Germans : while the Eastern Germanic speeches were most distinctive from both, you still had enough differences between Western and Northern for that it can be found in material culture (you'd argue that a fair set of differences may be due to a more important adaptation to Roman presence, but arguably this may have played a role for this differenciation); or more generally from what can be seen from the Scandinavian presence in Anglo-Saxon England were there's a linguistical difference that didn't existed between insular Saxons and continental Saxons, at least in the Carolingian era.

Now, if you're saying that Western and Northern Germans weren't separated as two different groups : I'd agree, hence why I said dialectal continuum rather than linguistical (even if the difference may be subjective). Jutes were the "doorway", in a sense for Northern Germans.

That said I notice an easier adaptation to Western Germans (insular, but as well continental, which may be more relevant) than Northern, if tradition is to be believed, which could point them was closer from the formers.
 
I'll also add to the LSCatilina's worthwhile comments that is far from settled that the Jutes of Kent are the same as the PreNordic inhabitants of Jutland (Jutland isn't named after the Jutes btw).
That's not to say it is impossible that they had the same origin but that settlement was not directly from the peninsula, otherwise they would have had the same distribution as the Angles.
If they did come from the peninsula then the pattern of settlement indicates that they first settled in what is now the Netherlands/WestGermany before coming over with the Saxons after having been "watered down".
I tend to hold that they were the Saxones Eucci mentioned as living under Frankish domination.
 
Well, you know I'm not a big fan of the "Germanic people formed right from the start and wandering as a determined-once-and-for-all one entity" theories.

There's nothing, really, that prevent us to think that Euthiones were a branch of Jutes established since a more or less long period in Gaul (it could be a mix of Saxons from the Shore and newcomers), after having "collected" different Western Germanic peoples on the road and that ended to form Euthiones*.
Similar theories were raised, for exemple, on Frisians' ethnogenesis.

Frankish peoples were, for exemple, particularly diverse themselves and many distinctions never really broken a sense of "kinship" (that, I give you that, may have been more political than cultural).

So having part of Jutes/proto-Jutes branching off from the main peoples, and then having the latter moving out (partially basing their moves on a kinsmen's supports) wouldn't seem to me that foolish.

On the Jutland proper, I'd be less affirmative personally : while Jutland/Jylland means (roughly, you'll pardon me my lack of skills in linguistics) "lowlands advancing on the sea", it's possible that Jutes were called such because of their geographical location. Basically, Jutland and Jutes having a same linguistical origin.

Now, if the Norse later exemple can be used (and I really think it's fitting Late Antiquity Saxons), Channel wasn't some kind of bareer, quite at the contrary (you had important mutual exchanges) : it only makes sense to think that Gallic Saxons had a part into the Christianisation of Anglo-Saxons (and more generally on the Frankish influence, if not domination, on southern Anglo-Saxons petty kingdoms) and in this optic, having a kinship between Euthiones and Jutes from Kent may be a good hypothesis (among many other reasons, but such geographical proximity, critically along "palatial" trade roads, shouldn't be hand-waved).

With such relationship, while hard to say which branch initiated the first settlement (a bit irrelevant, IMO, giving the likely symbiotic relationships).

So my impression would be that Kent's Jutes would be a mix of Gaul's and Saxony's Jutes driven by the general North Sea moves (themselves driven by Danes and the general disorder in Scandinavia) and on which "peninsular" Jutes may have been on lead, as a way to reconcily what we know on Late Antiquity ethnogenesis and tradition.
I agree, that said, that this is an entierly debatable point of view.

*Which may hint, again, to a pre-existent closeness between Jutes and other Western Germanic peoples. That said, something similar could be said on proto-Burgundians and Western Germanic Burgundians.
 
Last edited:
I'd be less affirmative myself, if you're saying that you didn't have any difference (linguistical or cultural) between Western and Northern Germans : while the Eastern Germanic speeches were most distinctive from both, you still had enough differences between Western and Northern for that it can be found in material culture (you'd argue that a fair set of differences may be due to a more important adaptation to Roman presence, but arguably this may have played a role for this differenciation); or more generally from what can be seen from the Scandinavian presence in Anglo-Saxon England were there's a linguistical difference that didn't existed between insular Saxons and continental Saxons, at least in the Carolingian era.

Now, if you're saying that Western and Northern Germans weren't separated as two different groups : I'd agree, hence why I said dialectal continuum rather than linguistical (even if the difference may be subjective). Jutes were the "doorway", in a sense for Northern Germans.

That said I notice an easier adaptation to Western Germans (insular, but as well continental, which may be more relevant) than Northern, if tradition is to be believed, which could point them was closer from the formers.

What i'm trying to say is that i believe that the difference between Western Germanic and Northern Germanic was mainly Geographical (including to a certain degree a question of their cultural influences) instead of linguistial, which would have been one long dialect continuum instead of two closely related but at its most basic still different language groups. with the westernmost languages (Frisian, Insular Anglo-Saxon Pidgin/Creole) starting to become mutually unintelligible somewhere near the artificial border between the two languages.
 
which would have been one long dialect continuum instead of two closely related but at its most basic still different language groups.
I guess what I was saying was more of a middle-way situation : basically very related and not wholly separated continuums, with still enough differences to be noticable.
A bit like post-Imperial Romances speeches were still pretty much mutually intelligible, but having their own particularities which were enough important for that, eventually and on a relatively long period, distinct languages may appear from these (for linguistical and non linguistical reasons).

The comparison isn't perfect, but I think it's close enough to describe a Germanic linguistical continuum itself divided in which is admittedly three retroactive divisions gathering different groups (especially true for Western Germans that are mostly defined as "non-Eastern" and "non-Northern").

Nevertheless, as we can base ourselves only on later Germanic languages divisions, and on archeological finds (that seems to imply a cultural difference : which is not prooving anything linguistically, but at least point more than just geographical differences) theorizing an ancient dialectical division remains largely sound to me.

with the westernmost languages (Frisian, Insular Anglo-Saxon Pidgin/Creole) starting to become mutually unintelligible somewhere near the artificial border between the two languages.
We're talking of a much later period : Anglo-Saxon and continental Saxon was close enough in Carolingian era, for that insular missionaries could preach the latter in their own native language.
Up to the VIIIth/IXth centuries, it seems you didn't have a clear linguistical bareer (altough I agree that such process would have taken longer in North Sea shores than Germania itself, would it be only trough regular Anglo-Saxons/Frisians/Saxons contacts).

Basically, if we agree that from one hand, speeches that formed Anglo-Saxon were close enough to mix; that they weren't mutually unintelligible up to a quite later time with their continental counterparts...It seems that we could fairly bet on the existence of a dialectal continuum.

It's worth noting, as well, that while Western Germanic languages differenciated themselves, Northern Germanic languages weren't such at the same time (and are still not that differenciated today). While it's certainly partially due to "political" matters (earlier political differenciation), it could hints fairly easily to two different (if related) linguistical evolutions.

Now, maybe we'd have to agree to disagree : it's true the whole thing is debated and there's not much definitive proofs to support one side or the other.
 
Last edited:
Well, you know I'm not a big fan of the "Germanic people formed right from the start and wandering as a determined-once-and-for-all one entity" theories.

There's nothing, really, that prevent us to think that Euthiones were a branch of Jutes established since a more or less long period in Gaul (it could be a mix of Saxons from the Shore and newcomers), after having "collected" different Western Germanic peoples on the road and that ended to form Euthiones*.
Similar theories were raised, for exemple, on Frisians' ethnogenesis.

Frankish peoples were, for exemple, particularly diverse themselves and many distinctions never really broken a sense of "kinship" (that, I give you that, may have been more political than cultural).

So having part of Jutes/proto-Jutes branching off from the main peoples, and then having the latter moving out (partially basing their moves on a kinsmen's supports) wouldn't seem to me that foolish.

On the Jutland proper, I'd be less affirmative personally : while Jutland/Jylland means (roughly, you'll pardon me my lack of skills in linguistics) "lowlands advancing on the sea", it's possible that Jutes were called such because of their geographical location. Basically, Jutland and Jutes having a same linguistical origin.

Now, if the Norse later exemple can be used (and I really think it's fitting Late Antiquity Saxons), Channel wasn't some kind of bareer, quite at the contrary (you had important mutual exchanges) : it only makes sense to think that Gallic Saxons had a part into the Christianisation of Anglo-Saxons (and more generally on the Frankish influence, if not domination, on southern Anglo-Saxons petty kingdoms) and in this optic, having a kinship between Euthiones and Jutes from Kent may be a good hypothesis (among many other reasons, but such geographical proximity, critically along "palatial" trade roads, shouldn't be hand-waved).

With such relationship, while hard to say which branch initiated the first settlement (a bit irrelevant, IMO, giving the likely symbiotic relationships).

So my impression would be that Kent's Jutes would be a mix of Gaul's and Saxony's Jutes driven by the general North Sea moves (themselves driven by Danes and the general disorder in Scandinavia) and on which "peninsular" Jutes may have been on lead, as a way to reconcily what we know on Late Antiquity ethnogenesis and tradition.
I agree, that said, that this is an entierly debatable point of view.

*Which may hint, again, to a pre-existent closeness between Jutes and other Western Germanic peoples. That said, something similar could be said on proto-Burgundians and Western Germanic Burgundians.

Agreed, and well said
 
Top